Draft an email in a specified Gmail account without sending it, defining recipients, subject, body, and optional CC, BCC, or reply details.
Save an email as a draft in the given account (not sent).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cc | No | ||
| to | Yes | ||
| bcc | No | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| account | Yes | ||
| subject | Yes | ||
| reply_to_message_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key outcome, that the email is saved as a draft and not sent, but omits permission requirements, whether the draft is later visible or editable, and any mutation side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is very concise, though arguably too sparse given the tool's 7 parameters and lack of annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It establishes purpose and draft-vs-send behavior, but leaves major gaps in parameter meaning, usage routing, and behavioral expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters. The description mentions only 'the given account' and a generic 'email', leaving required fields like to, subject, and body plus optional fields like cc, bcc, and reply_to_message_id completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Save an email as a draft in the given account.' The parenthetical '(not sent)' distinguishes it from the sibling send_email tool, so an agent can identify its purpose without opening the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase '(not sent)' implies this tool is for drafting rather than sending, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose it over send_email or other siblings. No prerequisites, account constraints, or exclusions are given beyond the not-sent clarification.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.